MRes BBK/PhD SOAS: A queer historical analysis of Anglo/Egyptian counter-terrorism and emergency law

这个项目进行了奇怪的女权主义英国和埃及之间的殖民关系的检查，了解如何，以及哪些科目，紧急和反恐法律犯下日常暴力在当代的背景下;此外，法律的正常化在隐藏这种暴力中发挥的核心作用。我以英埃关系为中心，以理解文明和道德的叙述继续规范身体和空间的特定方式;以及这种规范如何在种族，性别，宗教和阶级的观念方面表现出不同。我专注于如何法律的时间性和性功能作为治理的生物政治和死亡政治的方法，以及它们是如何在当代反恐law. In这个项目的核心殖民地的基础是争论，西方哲学和当代政治的极端主义的理解不能被认为是从道德。当今对恐怖分子形象的道德恐慌与整个20世纪80年代围绕同性恋和男同性恋者的道德恐慌有着共同的医学框架。这里的核心是种族化和性别化的共同构成性质，因为它们联合收割机塑造了与法律文明进步相关的标志。道德可以被解读为当代的“血的话语”，这些话语病态地描述穆斯林社区，因为他们总是“携带着不忠诚的种子”。关于恐怖主义和极端主义的叙述往往被钉在生物本质主义上，反恐立法通过在国际边界、公共空间、工作场所和网络空间实施的规定影响所有主体。然而，这项立法对那些被标记为“可疑”的人是暴力的：我认为这些人被视为性别和种族化。将酷儿视为对规范的破坏，受反恐法影响的主体可以被理解为通过其性别、性取向和/或种族表达的异常来扰乱国家的直白色边界。暴力标志着明显的穆斯林，种族化和奇怪的性别主体的生活，他们不太能够“通过”异性恋/同性恋对可接受的美学的理解。我认为，在全球反恐战争中运作的政治法律框架所管制的社区的缓慢死亡或日常暴力，是由这种正常化进程和自由国家声称的反恐“软”做法所无形化的。在将紧急立法纳入普通法的范围时，法律的暴力和国家暴力被赋予了“正常”，因此也就被赋予了“正当”、“合法"和”必要“。“我的项目使用了一种混合的方法来追踪从二十世纪早期的世纪埃及到现在的英国和埃及的法律的暴力和道德框架。我研究了1914-1928年英国殖民时期的档案收藏;两幅伦敦和开罗的英国军事地图，其中一幅福尔斯不在这一时间范围内;当今的反恐立法和判例法;以及当今在英国对埃及人的“测绘”采访。为了这个项目的目的，我专注于对上述主题的特殊待遇的“正常化”过程，认为紧急措施成为“不是例外，而是规则”的压迫。我理解正常化既意味着将临时紧急措施正式化为永久性的反恐立法，也意味着构成殖民地和法律的档案的小而平凡的言论。

This project carries out a queer feminist examination of the colonial relationship between Britain and Egypt as a context for understanding how, and for which subjects, emergency and counter-terrorism laws perpetrate everyday violence in the contemporary; and further, the central role that legal normalisation plays in hiding such violence. I centre the Anglo-Egyptian relationship in order the understand the particular ways in which narratives of civilisation and morality continue to regulate bodies and space; and how this regulation manifests differently in terms of perceptions of race, gender, religion and class. I focus on how legal temporality and sexuality function as biopolitical and necropolitical methods of governance and how they are central in the colonial underpinnings of contemporary counter-terrorism law.At the heart of this project lies the contention that Western philosophical and contemporary political understandings of extremism cannot be thought apart from morality. Present-day moral panics over the figure of the terrorist share medicalised framings with those around queer and gay men throughout 1980s. Central here is the co-constitutive nature of racialisation and sexualisation, as they combine to shape the markers associated with a civilised progression of law. Morality can be read into contemporary 'blood discourses' that pathologise Muslim communities as always already 'carrying the seed of disloyalty'. Narratives of terrorism and extremism are often pinned to biological essentialisms.Counter-terrorism legislation effects all subjects through the regulations that it puts in place at international borders, in public space, places of work, and in cyberspace. This legislation is violent, however, towards those it marks as 'suspect:' subjects who I understand to be cast as gendered and racialised. Holding queer as a disruption of the norm, subjects who are affected by counter-terrorism law can be understood as troubling the straight white borders of the nation through what are represented as abnormalities in their expressions of gender, sexuality and/or race. Violence marks the lives of visibly Muslim, racialised and queerly gendered subjects who are less able to 'pass' hetero/homonormative understandings of acceptable aesthetics. I contend that the slow death or everyday violence of communities regulated by politico-legal frameworks operating within the global war on terror is invisibilised by such processes of normalisation and liberal states' claims to 'soft' practices of countering terrorism. In bringing emergency legislation into the remit of common law, legal and state violence is rendered 'normal' and consequently, 'legitimate,' 'lawful,' and 'necessary.'My project uses a mixed methods approach in order to trace legal violence and framings of morality from early twentieth century Egypt to present-day Britain and Egypt. I look at British colonial archival collections from 1914-1928; two British military maps of London and Cairo, one of which falls outside of this timeframe; present-day counter-terrorism legislation and case law; and present-day 'mapping' interviews with Egyptians in Britain. For the purposes of this project, I focus on the processes of 'normalisation' of exceptional treatment for the aforementioned subjects, contending that emergency measures become 'not the exception, but the rule' for the oppressed. I understand normalisation to mean both the formalisation of temporary emergency measures into permanent counter-terrorism legislation and the small and mundane utterances that make up the colonial and legal archive.